Document Type : Original Article


1 Veterinary Research Institute, Hellenic Agricultural Organization Demeter, Thessaloniki, Greece

2 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia


The aim of this study was to investigate whether keel bone damage is prevalent in laying hens in Greece. The study was conducted in three industrial farms using different housing systems: (a) enriched cages, (b) floor system, and (c) free-range system. One hundred hens per housing system, randomly selected, were evaluated for keel bone damages with the method of palpation. Complementarily, thirty eggs from each farm were selected for the measurement of egg weight, shape index, shell cleanness, shell color, shell breaking force, shell thickness, shell weight, egg yolk color, albumen height, and Haugh unit. The presence of keel bone damage was evident in all housing systems with the significantly highest occurrence being observed in the free-range system (50.00%), followed by enriched cages (24.00%) and floor system (7.00%). Eggs from all three systems had significant differences in all estimated egg quality parameters apart from shell color and Haugh unit.


  1. Harlander-Matauschek A, Rodenburg TB, Sandilands V, et al. Causes of keel bone damage and their solutions in laying hens. Worlds Poult Sci J2015; 71(03):461-472.
  2. Stojčić MÐ, Perić L, Relić R, et al. Keel bone damage in laying hens reared in different production systems in Serbia. Biotechnol Anim Husb 2017; 33(4):487-492.
  3. Petrik MT, Guerin MT, Widowski TM. On-farm comparison of keel fracture prevalence and other welfare indicators in conventional cage and floor-housed laying hens in Ontario, Canada. Poult Sci 2015; 94(4):579-585.
  4. Regmi P, Nelson N, Steibel JP, et al. Comparisons of bone properties and keel deformities between strains and housing systems in end-of-lay hens. Poult Sci 2016; 95(10):2225-2234.
  5. Casey-Trott TM, Guerin MT, Sandilands V, et al. Rearing system affects prevalence of keel-bone damage in laying hens: a longitudinal study of four consecutive flocks. Poult Sci 2017; 96(7):2029-2039.
  6. Eusemann BK, Baulain U, Schrader L, et al. Radiographic examination of keel bone damage in living laying hens of different strains kept in two housing systems. PLoS ONE 2018; 13(5): e0194974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194974.
  7. Riber AB, Casey-Trott TM, Herskin MS. The influence of keel bone damage on welfare of laying hens. Front Vet Sci 2018; 5: 6. doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00006.
  8. Nasr MAF, Murrell J, Nicol CJ. The effect of keel fractures on egg production, feed and water consumption in individual laying hens. Br Poult Sci 2013; 54(2):165-170.
  9. Heerkens JLT, Delezie E, Rodenburg TB, et al. Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poult Sci 2016; 95(3):482-488.
  10. Candelotto L, Stratmann A, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, et al. Susceptibility to keel bone fractures in laying hens and the role of genetic variation. Poult Sci 2017; 96(10):3517-3528.
  11. Wilkins LJ, Brown SN, Zimmerman PH, et al. Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. Vet Rec 2004; 155(18): 547-549.
  12. United States standards, grades, and weight classes for shell eggs, AMS 56, Effective July 20, 2000, available at: /default /files /media/Shell_Egg_Standard 5B1 5D.pdf. Accessed Feb 20, 2019.
  13. Anderson KE, Tharrington JB, Curtis PA, et al. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb white leghorn chickens and the relationship of egg shape to shell strength. Int J Poult Sci 2004; 3(1):17-19.
  14. Mašić B, Pavlovski Z, Devečerski O, et al. Small flocks of laying hens in different housing systems. Monograph [Serbian]. Belgrade, Serbia: Scientific Institute of Animal Husbandry 1994; 150.
  15. Bonferroni CE. Statistical class theory and probability calculus [Italian]. Florence, Italy: Seeber International Library 1936; 8: 1-62.
  16. Shingala MC, Rajyaguru A. Comparison of post hoc tests for unequal variance. Int J New Technol Sci Eng 2015; 2(5): 22-33.
  17. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1952; 47(260):583-621.
  18. Nachar N. The Mann‐Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2008; 4(1):13‐20.
  19. Hellenic republic ministry of rural development and food, 2017. Available at: stories/docs/agrotis/poulerika/ektrofh_poulerika_avg on101017. pdf. Accessed Oct 18, 2018.
  20. Casey-Trott TM, Korver DR, Guerin MT, et al. Opportunities for exercise during pullet rearing, Part II: Long-term effects on bone characteristics of adult laying hens at the end-of-lay. Poult Sci 2017; 96(8):2518-2527.
  21. Regmi P,Nelson N, Haut RCet al.Influence of age and housing systems on properties of tibia and humerus of Lohmann White hens: Bone properties of laying hens in commercial housing systems. Poult Sci 2017; 96(10): 3755-3762.
  22. Denli M, Bukun B, Tutkun M. Comparative performance and egg quality of laying hens in enriched cages and free-range systems. Sci Papers Ser D Anim Sci 2016; 59:29-32.
  23. Englmaierová M, Tůmová E, Charvátová V, et al. Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics and egg microbial contamination. Czech J Anim Sci 2014; 59(8):345-352.
  24. Yilmaz Dikmen B, İpek A, Şahan Ü, et al. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poult Sci 2016; 95(7):1564-1572.
  25. Ahammed M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, et al. Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014; 27(8):1196-1203.
  26. Yilmaz Dikmen B, İpek A, Şahan Ü, et al. Impact of different housing systems and age of layers on egg quality characteristics. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 2017; 41(1):77-84.
  27. Sokołowicz Z, Krawczyk J, Dykiel M. The effect of the type of alternative housing system, genotype and age of laying hens on egg quality. Ann Anim Sci 2018; 18(2):541-555.
  28. Stojčić MÐ, Perić L, Bjedov S, et al. The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotechnol Anim Husb 2009; 25(5-6):1103-1108.
  29. Lewko L, Gornowicz E. Effect of housing system on egg quality in laying hens. Ann Anim Sci 2011; 11(4):607-616.
  30. Vlčková J, Tůmová E, Ketta M, et al. Effect of housing system and age of laying hens on eggshell quality, microbial contamination and penetration of micro-organisms into eggs. Czech J Anim Sci 2018;63 (2):51-60.
  31. De Reu K, Rodenburg TB, Grijspeerdt K, et al. Bacteriological contamination, dirt, and cracks of eggshells in furnished cages and noncage systems for laying hens: an international on-farm comparison.Poult Sci 2009; 88(11):2442-2448.
  32. Şekeroğlu A, Sarıca M, Demir E, et al. Effects of different housing systems on some performance traits and egg qualities of laying hens. J Anim Vet Adv 2010;9:1739-1744.